Marriage Equality

[Coburgtiger]

I don't consider a homosexual relationship to be immoral. It's not my personal cup of tea, but as long as it is between two consenting adults, who are we to judge?

In accepting that, how can we not accept the same arguments for relationships between close blood relations. Sure, it might not be our own personal cup of tea (there are so many beautiful girls out there, why the hell would I want to get with my sister!!.....no offense intended sis...), but how can we justify judging it as immoral if it is two consenting adults? Surely like consenting homosexual couples, what they do is nobody else's business?

Like I say, the original article that took my interest was a pair of half siblings who hadn't been raised together in a single family unit. So not your conventional sibling scenario. But with society and the family unit changing, that kind of example could well become more common.

I don't have any real problem with the people in your scenario being married.

That's a personal opinion. I do, however think that it's an unusual and specific situation, and, like any moral hypothetical, prompts interesting questions.

Most situations involving incestuous relationships would have abhorrent power imbalances, grooming, and issues with age of consent. It is not an equivocation of same sex relationships.

More importantly, it is not relevant to the discussion. It is a specific, unusual case that would require its own discussion. It has nothing to do with the question 'Should the law be changed to allow same sex marriage?'

 

[Giardiasis]

I've never used the above phrases in the way you state although others may have. But there is no problem in my mind for people to say we are giving SS couples equality of marriage rights with hetero couples. You say "but marraige Equality necessarily means that every possible type of human or animal relationship of a romantic nature must therefore be included or you can't use the term equality ". Thats stretching the argument too the point of incredulity IMO.

You didn't explain how aboriginal voting rights failed to give aboriginal people the equality of rights to vote either.

Well you might think it is incredulous, but it is consistent. Language is very important, as shown by the backlash against the yes voters who have taken this line of argument.

I have explained it. To say that aboriginal people were given the equality of rights to vote is contradictory to the definition of equality.

 

[Rosy]

Interestingly its starting to look very suss.

EDIT: OK apparently not as someone has now been charged over it.

How was it looking suss?

 

[AngryAnt]

Well you might think it is incredulous, but it is consistent. Language is very important, as shown by the backlash against the yes voters who have taken this line of argument.

I have explained it. To say that aboriginal people were given the equality of rights to vote is contradictory to the definition of equality.

So animals and kids are in according to your interpretation of equality. Sorry, that's nuts.

And nowhere have you explained how giving Aborigines voting rights doesn't give them equal voting rights. Go ahead and do so, if you can.

 

[Giardiasis]

So animals and kids are in according to your interpretation of equality. Sorry, that's nuts.

And nowhere have you explained how giving Aborigines voting rights doesn't give them equal voting rights. Go ahead and do so, if you can.

If you want to frame marriage in the context of equality, then yes. You still wish to do this perhaps because it's the reason you advance the yes vote. However it is a false equalivance, but it is too hard for you to let that go so instead of accepting reason you resort to ad hominem. Advance the yes vote, just don't claim it is about equality.

Now you've changed what you said. Equal voting rights to existing voters yes. Equality of voting rights no.

 

[AngryAnt]

If you want to frame marriage in the context of equality, then yes. You still wish to do this perhaps because it's the reason you advance the yes vote. However it is a false equalivance, but it is too hard for you to let that go so instead of accepting reason you resort to ad hominem. Advance the yes vote, just don't claim it is about equality.

Now you've changed what you said. Equal voting rights to existing voters yes. Equality of voting rights no.

Geez gia - you still haven't explained why it's a false equivalence. By the way a false equivalence is when I say A is the same or similar to B, but it actually isn't. Show me where I've said that anywhere.

And you still haven't explained why giving Aborigines the vote doesn't give them equal voting rights.

If you can, do so. I'm still waiting.

 

[YinnarTiger]

How was it looking suss?

Maybe Abbott referring his complaint to Andrew Bolt and hours later to the police.

 

[Rosy]

Maybe Abbott referring his complaint to Andrew Bolt and hours later to the police.

I still don't get it. What's "suss" about that (if in fact it even happened)?

 

[Sintiger]

I am heterosexual and married. I have a couple of male friends in a long term relationship who would also very much like to get married and I believe they should have that right.

It's that simple imo, everything else is noise.

 

[Giardiasis]

Geez gia - you still haven't explained why it's a false equivalence. By the way a false equivalence is when I say A is the same or similar to B, but it actually isn't. Show me where I've said that anywhere.

And you still haven't explained why giving Aborigines the vote doesn't give them equal voting rights.

If you can, do so. I'm still waiting.

You are saying this issue is the same as any issue about equality, when it is in fact not. A false equivalence.

FFS read my previous answer and see how you've changed what you said.

 

[Giardiasis]

I am heterosexual and married. I have a couple of male friends in a long term relationship who would also very much like to get married and I believe they should have that right.

It's that simple imo, everything else is noise.

That's all that needs to be said by those that want to vote yes.

 

[AngryAnt]

FFS read my previous answer and see how you've changed what you said.

the example of giving aboriginal people equal rights to vote in Australia.

One person, one vote, regardless of race.

It meant that aborigines got voting equality with white Australians.

One person one vote, regardless of race.

 

[Giardiasis]

One person, one vote, regardless of race.

One person one vote, regardless of race.

Race is but one line of discrimination, you are ignoring others, hence you contradict yourself.

 

[AngryAnt]

Race is but one line of discrimination, you are ignoring others, hence you contradict yourself.

So they couldn't vote because of legally instituted racial discrimination against them. Now they can because that particular form of discrimination has been legally removed. So now, even though they can vote, because there are other forms of discrimination (true) they don't have the same right to vote as other Australians?

Bizarre line of argument even for you Gia.

 

[The_General]

Tony Abbott, milking the 'headbutt' for all it's worth. He's a bottom feeder.

There's a few people at work have said they'll vote yes, simply because he's on the no side. I think most people agree with you.

 

[The_General]

If you want to frame marriage in the context of equality, then yes. You still wish to do this perhaps because it's the reason you advance the yes vote. However it is a false equalivance, but it is too hard for you to let that go so instead of accepting reason you resort to ad hominem. Advance the yes vote, just don't claim it is about equality.

Now you've changed what you said. Equal voting rights to existing voters yes. Equality of voting rights no.

Theyre called human rights Gia, not living organism rights.

Equality in that context is only about humans.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Geez gia - you still haven't explained why it's a false equivalence. By the way a false equivalence is when I say A is the same or similar to B, but it actually isn't. Show me where I've said that anywhere.

And you still haven't explained why giving Aborigines the vote doesn't give them equal voting rights.

If you can, do so. I'm still waiting.

Not to worry Ant. Gia thinks repeating assertions ("it's a false equivalence") is the same explaining your position.

Gia is a grand master of the deceptive semantic arts. Nothing really means anything unless we all agree to his particular definition (see "CO2 is not a 'pollutant'" amongst others on the Global warming thread or "Tax is theft backed by violent force" in the Politics thread). He also loves to misuse informal logical fallacies.

 

[AngryAnt]

Yeah, I might call it a day on this one.

I agree with him on sintiger's statement though. Succinct and accurate. All the rest is unimportant.

 

[royce67]

I still don't get it. What's "suss" about that (if in fact it even happened)?

Correct. This doubting of Abbott's story was nothing more than uninformed biassed fools making up stories, false flag theories and the opposite side indulging in a bit of confected outrage to boot. I've been pissing myself laughing all day. I actually ran into Astro about an hour or so after he headbutted Abbott (as usual he was pissed and possibly stoned) and he told me what he'd done. I thought he was full of crap but had a giggle when I saw the news a couple of hours later.

Everybody in the Republic pub, and probably half of Hobart, knew about what he'd done last night. Crazy stuff.

 

[Panthera Tigris]

Well, kind of. The problem is that we carry recessive genetic mutations - when inbreeding occurs the combination of the identical alleles causes the recessive genes to be expressed, thus causing the health issues. And this risk is very high. Anyway, get your point so won't labour it further.

In effect you are saying that although you don't necessarily object to SSM, you don't want to risk a change that "opens the gate" to subsequent more radical changes down the track. Correct me if this is not your argument.

My attitude is that 20 years ago the majority of the population wouldn't have supported SSM - now they do (if the opinion polls are correct). I don't care what we supported then, I care what we support now. It's now our decision at this time. Most Australians living 100 years ago would have been shocked and appalled to know we were considering allowing SSM in 2017. Well, big deal. They are long dead. And if in another hundred years for some reason the population - either through a plebiscite (probably done through sensible implementation of blockchain technology) or through a vote in parliament or whatever, freely chooses to legalise polyamory or incestuous weddings, FANTASTIC. I'll be dead, I won't care, and I won't presume to dictate to future generations of human beings what they should choose or not choose.

Yes, correct ant, it is one of the areas that does cause me mixed feelings. Additionally the emboldened LBGTIQ professional political lobby (as distinct from gay & lesbian people on an individual level) using this particular issue as an opportunity precondition society to unquestionably believe future demands, no matter how far fetched, are also a fight for fundamental rights.

But then part of me thinks (given we are talking professional activists who's livelihoods depend on perpetual perceived injustice and an incessant navel gazing obsession with sexuality and gender identity politics) they'll be claiming perpetual injustice and struggle whether they have SSM or not. And the longer this gets drawn out, the bigger their platform. Nearly like, "you bigots held out so long on SSM, you now owe us this and this and this as well." So just get it done in an effort to cut their grandstand out from underneath them.